Background
Literature review
Innovation
Quality management practice
Structural contingency factors
Hypotheses development
Quality management and innovation
Social and technical quality management practices
Structural contingency
Organizational size
Organizational task
Managerial ethics
Method
Questionnaire development
Items
|
Source
|
---|---|
Social quality management practices
| Ketokivi and Schroeder [19] |
Quality training
| |
SQ1: Employees at this organization learn how to perform a variety of quality management tasks/jobs. | |
SQ2: Employees are quality management cross-trained at this organization so that they can fill in for others if necessary. | |
Cross-functional cooperation
| |
SQ3: Direct labor employees are involved to a great extent on quality management before introducing new products or making product changes. | |
SQ4: We work in teams, with members from a variety of areas (marketing, manufacturing, etc.) to introduce new products. | |
Long-term supply chain relationships
| |
SQ5: We strive to establish long-term relationships with suppliers. | |
SQ6: We maintain close communication with suppliers about quality considerations and design changes. | |
Technical quality management practices
| Ketokivi and Schroeder [19] |
JIT
| |
tQM1: Our suppliers deliver to us on a just-in-time basis (where a part/service is received within the appropriate time it is needed and only when it is needed). | |
tQM2: We can depend upon on-time delivery from our suppliers. | |
tQM3: Management emphasizes the importance of setup time reduction. | |
tQM4: We have low setup times of equipment in our plant. | |
tQM5: We have low work-in-process inventory on the shop floor. | |
tQM6: When we have a problem on the production floor, we can identify its location easily. | |
Design for manufacturability
| |
tQM7: We make an effort, in the design process, to list only the specifications which are really needed. | |
tQM8: The emphasis in part design is on minimizing the part count. | |
tQM9: The parts we produce are designed for ease in manufacturability and assembly. | |
Structural contingency factors
| |
Organizational size
| |
SC1: How large is your organization? | |
SC2: How many employees are in your organization? | |
Organizational task
| |
Task uncertainty
| |
SC3: Quality management is well understood in our organization. | |
SC4: Our employees are given enough information about quality management practices to adequately employ them. | |
SC5: Our organization understands how to incorporate quality management practices. | |
Task interdependence
| |
SC6: I frequently coordinate my quality management efforts with others. | |
SC7: My own performance in quality management work is dependent on receiving accurate knowledge from others. | |
SC8: In order to do my work in quality management, I need to spend most of my time talking to other people. | |
Managerial ethical evaluation
| |
Teleological evaluation
| |
SC9: An organization practicing quality management is ethical. | |
SC10: Based on possible consequences, I think an organization practicing quality management is ethical. | |
SC11: Considering both possible consequences and my own values, I think an organization practicing quality management is ethically acceptable. | |
Deontological evaluation
| |
SC12: Based on my own values, without considering any possible consequences, I think an organization practicing quality management is ethical. | |
SC13: Based on my own values, without considering any possible consequences, I think an organization practicing quality management is ethically acceptable. | |
Innovation
| Kim et al. [2] |
Radical product innovation
| |
INN1: Our new products differ substantially from our existing products. | |
INN2: We introduce radical product innovations into the new market more frequently than our competitors. | |
INN3: The percentage of total sales from radical product innovations is up substantially. | |
Incremental product innovation
| |
INN4: Our new products differ slightly from our existing products. | |
INN5: We introduce incremental product innovations into the market more frequently than our competitors. | |
INN6: The percentage of total sales from incremental product innovations is up substantially. | |
Radical process innovation
| |
INN7: Our organization has introduced new or significantly improved machinery and equipment for producing products or services. | |
INN8: Our organization has introduced new or significantly modified productive processes for producing products or services. | |
INN9: Our organization has introduced new or significantly improved information technologies for producing products or services. | |
Incremental process innovation
| |
INN10: Our organization introduced minor or incrementally improved machinery and equipment for producing products or services. | |
INN11: Our organization introduced minor or incrementally modified productive processes for producing produce or services. | |
INN12: Our organization introduced minor or incrementally improved information technologies for producing products or services. | |
Administrative innovation
| |
INN13: Our organization implemented new or improved existing computer-based administrative applications. | |
INN14: Our organization implemented new or improved existing employee reward/training schemes. | |
INN15: Our organization implemented new or improved existing structures such as project team or departmental structures, within or in-between existing structures. |
Sample
Demographic
|
Frequency (%)
|
---|---|
Position (D1) | |
Owner/CEO/President | 68.6 |
Senior manager | 31.4 |
Size (SC2) | |
Very small organization (20 employees or less) | 7.8 |
Small organization (21–100 employees) | 27.5 |
Medium organization (101–500 employees) | 23.5 |
Large organization (over 500 employees) | 41.2 |
Age (D2) | |
18-29 years | 5.9 |
30-44 years | 15.7 |
45-60 years | 43.1 |
Over 60 years | 35.3 |
Education (D4) | |
Less than high school degree | 2.0 |
High school degree | 3.8 |
Some college or Associate’s degree | 31.4 |
Bachelor degree | 31.4 |
Graduate degree | 31.4 |
Location (D5) | |
New England | 3.9 |
Middle Atlantic | 3.9 |
East North Central | 25.5 |
West North Central | 9.8 |
South Atlantic | 2.2 |
East South Central | 13.7 |
West South Central | 9.8 |
Mountain | 11.9 |
Pacific | 19.6 |
Data analysis
Construct
|
Cronbach’s alpha
|
Composite reliability
|
SQM
|
tQM
|
OS
|
OT
|
ME
|
INN
|
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
SQM | 0.851 | 0.887 | 0.755 | |||||
tQM | 0.899 | 0.912 | 0.468 | 0.737 | ||||
OS | 0.985 | 0.992 | 0.018 | −0.036 | 0.993 | |||
OT | 0.839 | 0.861 | 0.635 | 0.652 | 0.068 | 0.728 | ||
ME | 0.964 | 0.972 | 0.371 | 0.316 | 0.097 | 0.368 | 0.936 | |
INN | 0.940 | 0946 | 0.475 | 0.434 | −0.059 | 0.490 | 0.449 | 0.737 |
Results
Hypothesis
|
Relationship
|
β
|
Significance
|
---|---|---|---|
1 | SQM → INN | 0.491 | Significant |
2 | tQM → INN | 0.054 | Not significant |
3 | SQM → tQM | 0.489 | Significant |
4 | tQM → SQM | 0.490 | Significant |
5 | SQM X OS → INN | 0.151 | Not significant |
6 | tQM X OS → INN | 0.891 | Significant |
7 | SQM X OT → INN | −0.518 | Significant |
8 | tQM X OT → INN | −0.247 | Not significant |
9 | SQM X ME → INN | −0.834 | Not significant |
10 | tQM X ME → INN | 0.219 | Significant |